DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-ATAA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00988

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050525.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051020.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“THE MAJORITY OF MY SERVICE WAS HONORABLE, RECEIVING SEVERAL LETTERS OF APPREACIATION FROM THE COMMAND TO WHICH I WAS ASSIGNED.  THE DD-214 NOTES A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, WHEN INFACT MY DISCHARGE WAS BASED SOLEY UPON ONE UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT.”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214  (Member 4)
Letter of Appreciation to P.O. T_ T_, from C_ M. T_, State Technical Institute at Memphis, dated August 20, 1992
Letter of Appreciation to T_ T_ from  R_ B_, Chairman and E_ C. W_, Exectuive Director, Tennessee Sports Fest, dated August 10, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from J. W. P_, Jr., Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Millington, dated October 9, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from J. W. P_, Jr., Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Millington, dated September 28, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, J. W. P_, Jr., dated September 15, 1992
Letter of Appreciation to CAPT J. W. P_, Jr., from J_ D. H_, Parade Chairman, dated October 7, 1992
Letter of Appreciation to Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center from P_ M_, Commander, Millington Chapter 116, Disabled American Veterans, dated November 16, 1992
Letter of Appreciation to CAPT J. W. P_ Jr., from S_ C_, House Manager, Ronald Mcdonald House, dated August 31, 1992
Special Commendation from D_ S. M_, Graceland Christian Church, dated July 31, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from J. W. P_, Jr., Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Millington, dated November 10, 1992
Letter of Ineligibility from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated September 10, 2003
Certificate of Commendation, dated December 11, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from J. W. P_, Jr., Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Millington, dated November 16, 1992

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910418 - 911014	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  911015		Date of Discharge:  960426

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  06  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  85

Highest Rate:  AT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.3 (4)		Behavior:  3.5 (4)		OTA:  3.5

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Navy “E” Ribbon, Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Star

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930917:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Disobeying a lawful order.
	Award:  30 days correctional custody and reduction to E-3.

931102:	Retention Warning from [Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light FOUR EIGHT]:  Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP on 17SEP93, Violation of UCMJ Article 86: Absent from place of duty, 0800-1600 barracks security watch, until 0815, 14AUG93), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  Applicant refused to sign warning.

950602:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence.
	Award: Oral reprimand, 14 days extra duties, advancement to Petty Officer Third Class held in abeyance pending recommendation for advancement by chain of command.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950919:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence from 1530 until 1800 on August 22, 1995.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

951015:	Extension of enlistment for 24 months signed on 911015, effected this date.

960104:	Recommendation for advancement to E-4 withdrawn this date due to CO’s NJP.  Applicant refused to sign.

960201:	Commander Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light FOUR EIGHT, notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 19 September 1995 for violation of UCMJ Article 86; CO’s NJP on 2 June 1995 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 and CO’s NJP on 17 September 1993 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 and 92.  Applicant notified that least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.

960205:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with qualified counsel, elected all rights except for the right to an administrative discharge board.  The Applicant did not object to the separation.

960320:	Commanding Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light FOUR EIGHT, recommended discharge with a General (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  “On 14 August 1993, 13 May 1995 and 22 August 1995 ATAA M_ (Applicant) was absent without authorization from his appointed place of duty, a violation of UCMJ Article 86.  This continued pattern of misconduct will not be tolerated.  ATAA M_ (Applicant)’s attitude and pattern of misconduct are detrimental to good order and discipline.  I need a sailor who is responsible 24 hours a day.  ATAA M_ (Applicant) has not shown the maturity and dependability necessary as a sailor in the United States Navy.  Recommend Discharge under General conditions.”

960409:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960426 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).

By regulation, a discharge shall be deemed proper, unless it is determined that an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion has substantially prejudiced the rights of the Applicant.  The Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  A review of the Applicant’s service record convinced the Board that a preponderance of evidence exists to support the Applicant’s basis for separation by virtue of his three nonjudicial punishments on 19930917, 19950602, and 19950919 and NAVPERS 1070/613 Counseling/Retention Warning on 19931102.  The record further reveals that the Applicant was properly processed and notified for separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct on 19960201 with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  On 19960205, the Applicant elected all of his procedural rights except for the right to appear before an administrative discharge board.  The Applicant did not object to the separation.  On 19960320, the Commanding Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 48, recommended that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 19960409, BUPERS so directed the Applicant’s discharge.  Based upon the above review, the Board unanimously concluded that the Applicant’s discharge processing was in substantial compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations.  Despite the Applicant’s contentions, The Board could find no error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion that might afford the Applicant relief.  Thus, the Board concluded that relief is not warranted.

Regulations require that a Sailor’s characterization of service be based upon the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment.  Furthermore, there are circumstances where conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single adverse incident may form the basis of characterization for a Sailor’s overall service.  The incident need not result in formal punishment to be properly used to characterize a Sailor’s service.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard for acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general (under honorable conditions discharge) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for multiple violations of UCMJ Articles 86, unauthorized absence, and 92, failure to obey order or regulation.  In addition, the Applicant was counseled and afforded an opportunity to correct his behavior by virtue of a NAVPERS 1070/613 counseling/retention warning.  Despite this opportunity, the Applicant continued to commit misconduct resulting in his separation from the Naval service.  The Board concluded unanimously that the Applicant’s misconduct reflects his failure to meet the minimum standards required for an honorable discharge.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil”.

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023